TABLE 7.5 Temporary Jobs Programs for In-School Youths: Research Design and Results Youth Sample Size Con tr ol/Compar i son Program Effects Follow-up Response Rate Comments Program Participant Control Group Methodology Kntitlement 5,156a 2,354 Each pilot site In-program Fall 1979h Due to site Implementation (YIEPP) matched to a • earnings (school year) total = 74% Problems and other concerns comparison site; +46% to +161% black youths = 85% the final analysis sample stratified random • earnings (summer) Fall 1980 consisted of black youth;; samples drawn from +48% to +65% total = 73% eligible pools in • decreased unemployment black youths = 84% each site {program • increased employment- Fall 1981 eligibles, not to-population ratios total = 72'* participants, • no effect on school black youths = 83% composed the enrollment samples . ) Postprogram • earnings (annual) +$545 :ummer Youth 1,000 1,000 Random sample of In-program effect 3 months postprogram In-program effects Employment (125/site) (125/site) SYEP participants; • increased employment participants = 74% estimated on sample of Program (SYEP) control group 100% vs. 20% controls = 62% 70; poor design, high composed of eligibles Postprogram effects attrition, and rejected for SYEP • increased part-time questionable comparabilit on basis other than employment of control groups weaken eligibility 25% vs. 19% credibility of results. aRefers to all survey respondents in pilot sites where program operated, whether they participated or not. bRefers to total response rate, not necessarily the analysis sample.n employment not subsidized under" CETA (P.L. 95-524, See 481(b)). Program emphasis varied across sites. Some sites offered vocational training, others provided Job counseling, some a combinati of both. Time and resource constraints were cited äs the reasons for not recording the precise program elements to which each participant was exposed. Consequently, nothing can be learned about what sorts o interventions were particularly effective or ineffective in accomplis ing program objectives. Sites also differed in terms of geographic characteristics, i.e., urban, suburban, and rural, and in terms of adherence of eligibility criteria.